MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2399302330

SQL Azure as a Self-Managing Database Service: Lessons Learned and Challenges Ahead.

2011· article· en· W2399302330 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Data(base) Engineering Bulletin · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Database Systems and Queries
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCloud computingSQLDatabaseBusiness Intelligence Markup LanguageWorld Wide WebOperating systemServerClient–server model
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When SQL Azure was released in August 2009, it was the first database service of its kind along multiple axes, compared to other Cloud services: shared nothing architecture and log-based replication; support for full ACID properties; providing consistency and high availability; and by offering near 100% compatibility with on-premise SQL Server delivered a familiar programming model at cloud scale. Today, just over two years later, the service has grown to span six hosting regions across three continents; hosting large numbers of databases (in the order 100s of thousands), increasing more than 5x each year with 10s of thousands of subscribers. It is a very busy service, clocking more than 30 million successful logins over a 24 hour period. In this paper we reflect on the lessons learned, and the challenges we will need to face in future, in order to take the SQL Azure service to the next level of scale, performance, satisfaction for the end user, and profitability for the service provider.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.867
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.095
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.175 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it